KUALA LUMPUR: CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd (CTOS) has been ordered by the High Court here to pay RM200,000 to a resort director over an inaccurate credit rating.
Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir ruled recently that CTOS has breached the duty of care owed to Suriati Mohd Yusof, 43, as well as overstepped the functions it was registered for.
“This had caused the plaintiff (Suriati) to suffer losses. The court has limited the damages awarded for the personal losses suffered. The plaintiff’s reputation as well as her relationship with her husband had broken down as a result of the defendant’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.
“For the losses suffered, the court allowed the plaintiff’s claim and awarded a sum of RM200,000 as general damages. The court also awards cost of RM50,000 to the plaintiff,“ he said.
The judge also said there was no provision in the Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CRAA) 2010 empowering CTOS to formulate a credit score or to create its own criteria or percentage to formulate a credit score, and the defendant was just supposed to be a repository of the credit information to which the subscribers have access.
Judge Akhtar noted that CTOS’s main role is to collect, record, hold and store the information received as well as empowered to disseminate the information to its subscribers, and this includes financial institutions.
The woman, who was at then the director and shareholder of Keranji Beach Resort Sdn Bhd in Pulau Perhentian, Terengganu sued CTOS for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in misrepresenting her credit rating, which she claimed led to personal and business losses, as well as damaged her reputation.
The plaintiff discovered sometime in May 2019 that as a result of a negative report from the defendant her loan application for a car was rejected.
On further inquiry the plaintiff found out that the data collated by the defendant and kept by the defendant was inaccurate and false giving her negative credit rating.
The judge further said it was CTOS’s duty to do so, but it chose to ignore communication that it was not providing accurate information on the plaintiff.
“By choosing to be indifferent even after being alerted by the plaintiff, the defendant has clearly breached the duty of care owed towards the plaintiff,” he said.
He said the CRAA 2010 existed so that credit agencies could provide accurate information to financial agencies. -Bernama
